No matter what it does, high court is seen as political

By Tom Cohen, CNN

Updated 9:40 PM ET, Thu June 28, 2012

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013): The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal over California's Proposition 8 on jurisdictional grounds. The voter-approved ballot measure barring same-sex marriage was not defended by state officials, but rather a private party. This ruling cleared the way for same-sex marriage in California to resume, but left open-ended the legal language of 35 other states barring same-sex marriage. Take a look at other important cases decided by the high court.

Hide Caption

1 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – United States v. Windsor (2013): When her wife died in 2009, Edith Windsor, 84, was forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes because her marriage was not recognized by the federal government's Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. The Supreme Court struck down the part of the law which denied legally marriage same-sex couples the same federal benefits provided to heterosexual spouses.

Hide Caption

2 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): The Supreme Court upheld most of the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration's health care reform law, on June 28, 2012. The decision determined how hundreds of millions of Americans will receive health care.

Hide Caption

3 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): Activists rally in February 2012 to urge the Supreme Court to overturn its decision that fundamentally changed campaign finance law by allowing corporations and unions to contribute unlimited funds to political action committees not affiliated with a candidate.

Hide Caption

4 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Texas v. Johnson (1989): The Supreme Court overturned the decision that convicted Gregory Lee Johnson of desecrating a venerated object after he set an American flag on fire during a protest. The court ruled that Johnson (at right with his lawyer, William Kunstler) was protected under the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Hide Caption

5 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – United States v. Nixon (1974): When President Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over taped conversations regarding the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled that he had to turn over the tapes and other documents. The ruling set a precedent limiting the power of the president of the United States.

Hide Caption

6 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Roe v. Wade (1973): Norma McCorvey, identified as "Jane Roe," sued Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade over a law that made it a felony to have an abortion unless the life of the mother was in danger. The court agreed with Roe and overruled any laws that made abortion illegal in the first trimester. Here, McCorvey, left, stands with her attorney Gloria Allred in 1989.

Hide Caption

7 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Ernesto Miranda confessed to a crime without the police informing him of his right to an attorney or right against self-incrimination. His attorney argued in court that the confession should have been inadmissible, and in 1966, the Supreme Court agreed. The term "Miranda rights" has been used since.

Hide Caption

8 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): The Supreme Court overturned the burglary conviction of Clarence Earl Gideon after he wrote to the court from his prison cell, explaining he was denied the right to an attorney at his 1961 trial.

Hide Caption

9 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Dollree Mapp because the evidence collected against her was obtained during an illegal search. The ruling re-evaluated the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Hide Caption

10 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Brown v. Board of Education (1954): Nathaniel Steward recites his lesson surrounded by white classmates at the Saint-Dominique School in Washington. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to separate students based on race.

Hide Caption

11 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Korematsu v. United States (1944): Fred Korematsu, a Japanese-American man, was arrested after authorities found out that he claimed to be a Mexican-American to avoid an internment camp during World War II. The court ruled that the rights of an individual were not as important as the need to protect the country during wartime. In 1998, President Bill Clinton awarded Korematsu the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Hide Caption

12 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): Homer Plessy was arrested when he refused to leave a whites-only segregated train car, claiming he was 7/8 white and only 1/8 black. The Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities for blacks were constitutional, which remained the rule until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Hide Caption

13 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): When Dred Scott asked a circuit court to reward him his freedom after moving to a free state, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress didn't have the right to prohibit slavery and, further, that those of African-American descent were not protected by the Constitution.

Hide Caption

14 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Gibbons v. Ogden (1824): This was the first case to establish Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. The ruling signaled a shift in power from the states to the federal government. Aaron Ogden, seen here, was given exclusive permission from the state of New York to navigate the waters between New York and certain New Jersey ports. When Ogden brought a lawsuit against Thomas Gibbons for operating steamships in his waters, the Supreme Court sided with Gibbons.

Hide Caption

15 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): In response to the federal government's controversial decision to institute a national bank in the state, Maryland tried to tax the bank out of business. When a federal bank cashier, James W. McCulloch, refused to pay the taxes, the state of Maryland filed charges against him. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that chartering a bank was an implied power of the Constitution. The first national bank, pictured, was created by Congress in 1791 in Philadelphia.

Hide Caption

16 of 17

Photos: Supreme Court cases that changed America17 photos

Supreme Court cases that changed America – Marbury v. Madison (1803): When Secretary of State James Madison, seen here, tried to stop Federal loyalists from being appointed to judicial positions, he was sued by William Marbury. Marbury was one of former President John Adams' appointees, and the court decided that although he had a right to the position, the court couldn't enforce his appointment. The case defined the boundaries of the executive and judicial branches of government.

Hide Caption

17 of 17

Story highlights

Thursday's health care ruling angers the political right

Recent poll says public thinks justices base rulings on personal views, rather than the law

Analyst: The Supreme Court gets dragged down by party politics in Washington

Most Americans think Supreme Court justices base their rulings on personal political views rather than legal interpretation, polls show, and Thursday's ruling on the politically charged health care reform law will probably reinforce that.

By the narrowest of margins, the high court upheld almost all of President Barack Obama's signature legislative achievement: the 2010 Affordable Care Act despised by conservatives as an expansion of government.

The 5-4 decision prompted immediate criticism from the political right and the dissenting justices that it was an improper judicial overreach.

Meanwhile, the reaction on the left was jubilant, with the Democratic National Committee executive director tweeting in exuberance: "it's constitutional. Bitches."

With justices clearly identified as conservative or liberal, based on their rulings and the party affiliation of the presidents who nominated them, any decision on a high-profile, emotional issue such as health care reform seemed certain to exacerbate the perception of politics motivating the ruling.

A recent CBS News/New York Times poll found that 55% of respondents believed Supreme Court justices would decide the health care cases based on personal or political views, compared with 32% who said the rulings would be based on legal analysis.

The same poll found only 13% of respondents believed that justices generally base their decisions on legal analysis, while 76% believed they were sometimes influenced by personal views.

Supreme Court sides with Obama

Just Watched

Stinging loss for Republicans

At the same time, polls show public approval of the nation's highest court dipping near or below 50%, which is on the low side of a rating that has exceeded 70% in the past but is historically volatile.

For example, a CNN/ORC International poll in April showed that 50% of respondents approved of how the Supreme Court handled its job, with 41% disapproving and 9% offering no opinion.

To Nan Aron, president of the left-leaning Alliance for Justice, the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 presidential election through the Bush v. Gore case cemented the perception that the justices were guided by political ideology.

"Clearly the public sees the courts as similar to Congress -- the branch where politics trumps everything else," Aron told CNN before the health care ruling was handed down.

Now-retired Justice John Paul Stevens warned of that very eventuality in his dissent in the Bush v. Gore ruling, writing that although the nation may never be completely certain of who won the 2000 election, the identity of the loser was "perfectly clear."

"It is the nation's confidence in the judges as an impartial guardian of the rule of law," Stevens wrote.

Such a dynamic may seem inevitable in an era of stark partisan divide in the country, but court watchers said it shouldn't be that way.

"Precisely because everything is so polarized, there should be one branch of government that people on both sides of the aisle can view as deciding on the basis of law rather than politics, because these issues are so contested," said Jeffrey Rosen, the legal affairs editor for The New Republic, in a recent interview on NPR.

Connie Severino, chief counsel and policy director for the right-leaning Judicial Crisis Network, said on the same NPR program that the Supreme Court "has always maintained a position of being the most revered branch of government."

"What you've seen is a general decrease of public perception of government, and the court has kind of been dragged down along with it," Severino added.

In one way, Thursday's ruling altered a perception in recent years that a conservative majority on the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts held sway.

This time, Roberts joined the court's liberal wing in the health care ruling and wrote the majority opinion, which Scotusblog.com founder Tom Goldstein predicted would change the public view of the court.

Roberts' role in the decision "insulates the court and by extension him from criticism for the next 10 years that it's just a partisan place that's looking for political outcomes," Goldstein told Bloomberg Law.

Had Roberts sided Thursday with the other four conservatives -- Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- the liberal reaction would surely have been as heated as the anger on the political right.

Just Watched

Romney's health care response

"This is truly a turning point in American history. We'll never be the same way again," complained Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a leading tea party voice against the health care law. She called the ruling "a more far-reaching decision than anyone had expected or imagined."

Scalia added to the perception of politicized justices this week in his dissent of a Monday case on Arizona's immigration law in which he, Alito and Thomas opposed the majority, which included Roberts and Kennedy.

In the dissent, Scalia criticized the Obama administration's recent policy shift to halt deportations of some young illegal immigrants and complained that the government failed to enforce immigration laws, leaving border states unprotected.

A Washington Post editorial Thursday said Scalia's "lapses of judicial temperament" hurt the dignity of his office and endangered "not only his jurisprudential legacy but the legitimacy of the high court."

In recent years, 5-4 decisions reflected the conservative majority in some high-profile cases such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission of 2010, which opened the electoral process to unlimited private funding without full disclosure.

Roberts sided with his fellow conservatives in those cases, while four justices considered to the left -- Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and the now-retired Stevens -- supported the politically liberal stance.

Since then, Elena Kagan, another perceived liberal, succeeded Stevens on the high court.

The party affiliation of the president who nominated the justices matches the political affiliation now associated with each. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy all were put forward by Republicans, while Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan were nominated by Democrats.

"The court is agreeing to hear many more controversial cases and rendering 5-4 rulings in these cases, which have the effect of politicizing its decision-making," Aron said, adding that "with Citizens United, the inside game has become much more apparent now to many more Americans."

Asked if Bush v. Gore had instigated the shift in public perception that the high court was politically motivated, Aron responded: "I think that's right."

Severino, however, rejected the argument that a single ruling or set of rulings showed any particular political leaning by justices. Harsh reactions follow rulings in any high-profile case, she said, noting the continued public division over the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 that legalized abortion.

"The fact that a decision like Roe v. Wade was 7-2, something none of us would consider a close case ... and yet has continued to be possibly the most divisive case certainly in this last century by the court, I think that shows that it's not all about just the vote count," she said on the NPR program. "It's about the public perception of whether the court is really being political or is actually deciding based on the law."

An even more one-sided ruling, the 9-0 decision on Brown v. Board of Education that ended school segregation in 1954, also prompted a public outcry, including calls to impeach then-Chief Justice Earl Warren, Aron noted.

The desegregation ruling "galvanized a base of people particularly in the South who were very opposed to that," she said. She added that Roe v. Wade led to further right-wing dissatisfaction with the high court that manifested itself in the nominations of conservative justices by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1980s.

More recently, major rulings have followed the 5-4 breakdown, including the Parents v. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson Co. Board of Education affirmative action cases in 2007, the District of Columbia v. Heller gun control case in 2008 and the Citizens United case.

Shortly after the Citizens United ruling, Obama added to the politicizing of Supreme Court issues by challenging the decision in his State of the Union address as six of the nine justices sat nearby in the packed Congress chamber.

"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests --- including foreign corporations --- to spend without limit in our elections," he said to applause. "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."

As Obama spoke, Alito appeared to mouth the words "not true."

Severino, speaking to CNN before the health care rulings, questioned Obama's public criticism of the justices back then, saying the court's role is to decide if "a law is within the constitutional authority of the Congress" and nothing more.

"We don't have a Supreme Court to gauge which way the country's going," Severino said. "We have an elected legislature for that."

Rosen, however, said in the NPR interview that "if it's really a novel argument, and reasonable people can disagree, courts are supposed to defer to the political process and not second-guess it."

With his opinion for a narrow majority of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has, for the first time since his confirmation as chief justice in 2005, breached the gap between the conservative and liberal wings of the court on a polarizing political issue.

In a landmark ruling that will impact the November election and the lives of every American, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the controversial health care law championed by President Barack Obama.

The court's opinion, in preserving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, under Congress' taxing power, still gives a virtually unlimited sway to the power of the federal government, Stephen Presser writes.

The Supreme Court is set to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on Thursday. The landmark decision will dictate the way health care is administered to millions of Americans.